Common Council

GUEST ARTICLE: No place like home

by

Penn Court Apartments, fall 2024  (photo credit:  Rokosz Most)

 

Kingston Housing Authority tenants at Penn Court face two-years-long relocation, destination uncertain

By Rokosz Most

Plans to demolish the 32 units that make up Penn Court, a low-income housing development owned by the Kingston Housing Authority (KHA) in the city of Kingston, in order to build up a new four story senior housing building in its place, have affordable housing advocates on edge. Worried for current residents who will have to move during the two-years long project and questioning the veracity of the ever-shifting relocation plans communicated so far. 

The demolition and redevelopment is to be undertaken by Mountco Construction.

Spokespersons for both the KHA and Mountco, the KHA’s private partner in development, have insisted that no residents will be displaced.

Speaking to the planning board on October 22, Executive Director of the KHA, Harolda Wilcox, asserted that all tenants displaced by the demolition would be relocated to the Rondout Gardens Apartments, another KHA-owned property within the city limits.

“We have units at Rondout,” Wilcox said, “that they will be relocated to, but they still have the first right to return, so once the completion of the construction is done they will still get first opportunity to move back to those [newly constructed] units.”

Along with the 131 units of the Rondout Gardens, the KHA currently manages 350 other rental units over four other properties spread across the city of Kingston- Colonial Gardens, Wiltwyck Gardens, Leonard & Vera Van Dyke Apartment- formerly known as the Stuyvesant Charter Apartments and Brigham senior housing, owned by Jobco Inc out of Lake Success, NY. 

Skeptical with Wilcox’s explanation, City of Kingston Common Council alderwoman Michele Hirsch wants more details.

“To say that during a housing crisis, 32 households can be permanently relocated to [another KHA property],” Hirsch said, “I don’t see how that’s possible unless they’re warehousing apartments that we don’t know about.” 

Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha, likewise interested to see the actual plan as it was written, had her office reach out to the agency responsible for administering housing and community development programs in New York State, the HCR.

According to the HCR, as of November 15, no relocation plans spelling out the address where the tenants will be moved have been submitted. However the agency did note that the KHA may need to begin relocating residents prior to their official application.

“They’re announcing publicly there’s a plan,” says Hirsch, “and there’s no plan that’s been submitted.”

Since October 10, the tenants of Penn Court have been receiving 90-day notices of their impending ‘permanent relocation’- the official terminology of their move spelled out in the KHA letter- which specifies the duration of the project as 24 months. 

Expressing apprehension at how the KHA might react if they were identified in print, all tenants of the Penn Court apartments interviewed for this article requested that their real names not be used.

Mr. Moran, a tenant of Penn Court for years says he received his letter, but says the letter doesn’t specify where he’ll be relocated to.

“I don’t know if it’s Rondout or down below [Colonial Gardens]. I haven’t been notified as to where at.”

Grateful to have options for housing with the KHA, he doesn’t hold any illusions about being able to make it out in Kingston’s private rental housing market.

“I’ve seen the prices, man,” says Moran. “It’s crazy. Especially when you’re on a fixed income, you know. SSI (Supplemental Security Income).”

Across the way, Miss Millie says her letter doesn’t tell her where she is going to be moved either. A relative newcomer to Penn Court, she admits the imminent move and the proposed duration of the project inconveniences her but that she would even endure living in a hotel if it meant she could return to a KHA building. Her main concern is that she stays in the city. 

“If I was allowed the freedoms I have, within reason, then I wouldn’t mind as long as it was still local and I could get to work. I definitely wouldn’t want to go to a DSS (Department of Social Services) hotel and have to deal with DSS and rules and stuff.” 

She’s held the same job for five and a half years and relies on public transportation to get there. She points out that she has a son buried in St. Mary’s cemetery, across Flatbush Ave, one hundred yards away from her front door. 

“So, yeah, I plan on dying here.”

Miss Millie says that the KHA letter instructs that letter recipients will be relocated between January 15th and April 15th, 2025. 

“We’ll be permanently relocated with a right to return to the new building… We’d know where we’d be moving 30 days in advance. And that’s if we’re in good standing.”

Back across the courtyard, speaking from the door of his apartment, Mr. Seamus, fears the upcoming move. 

 “All I know is I can’t afford O’Neil street,” says the sixty-year-old, who uses O’Neil as his shorthand for the private rental market in Kingston. Born here in the city, lived his whole life here, Mr. Seamus wants to stay near his sister. “I can’t move far away. I’ve got health problems.”

As anyone who has looked to find housing within the KHA universe knows, vacancies are typically few and far in between.  A waiting list opens only sporadically, never failing to attract hundreds of new applicants. 

Over the course of three days in 2023, (August 15 through August 17), the KHA received approximately 1,500 applications. This year, after accepting applications for just the Van Dyke apartments, the KHA reported approximately 200 applicants on the waitlist for one-bedroom apartments and approximately 150 on the list for two bedroom apartments. Portfolio-wide, as of October, the KHA reported approximately 1,000 people on its waiting list.

Over the course of 2022-2023, typical amounts of vacancies were four to five units per building. Due in part to redevelopment efforts among its properties, currently the KHA reports approximately 39 units vacant across its entire portfolio. 

Back in May, vice president for Mountco, John Madeo, told the KHA board of commissioners that instead of units at the Rondout gardens, the residents of Penn Court would be moved to vacant apartments at the Leonard and Vera Van Dyke complex. 

Then back in July, at a time when Mountco and the KHA had been looking at demolishing three completely different buildings, this time in the Rondout Gardens, Madeo shared still a third version of where vacancies could appear in the KHA portfolio.

Speaking at a meeting with affected residents, Madeo was more expansive as he gamed out what the plans to relocate residents might actually look like in practice.

“The first thing we’re going to do is look at, are there any vacancies here at Rondout. If not here, we’ll look at other housing authority developments, whether it’s Van Dyke, whether it’s Wiltwyck, whether it’s Colonial Gardens. If we still don’t have any vacancies, we’re going to look outside [the KHA properties] in Kingston.”

When push comes to shove, if enough units aren’t available across all KHA properties, the expectation that any rental housing affordable to low-income tenants in Kingston’s private real estate market will be available is a longshot.

Included as part of the City of Kingston’s Comprehensive plan for 2024, a housing market analysis noted that “there is insufficient housing for households earning 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI in the City of Kingston with a 1,060 rental unit gap between the 1,455 renters earning 0-30% and the 395 units considered affordable to this population and a 145 rental unit gap for the 1,145 renters earning 30-50% AMI”.

Even if Madeo has not been made aware of the dearth of housing which exists in Kingston’s private market, and Mountco has been in partnership with the KHA since 2019, the KHA certainly knows. 

The public authority administers the City’s Section 8 Housing Voucher (HVC) Program, through which it provides up to 180 vouchers. Again, from the city of Kingston’s comprehensive plan:

“Due to the extremely limited housing stock available within the City, oftentimes the vouchers end up needing to be returned after an already extended 6-month period to try to locate housing.”

In the same report, a needs assessment also notes “at any given time 100 housing choice voucher holders do not have access to housing in the City due to lack of inventory. With no other options available, 100 voucher holders in 2023 had to seek assistance from homeless shelters.”

Speaking to Madeo at the meeting in July of 2023, an unidentified tenant from one of the Rondout Gardens buildings slated for demolition perhaps said it best.

“I’m sure you realize it. It was in [Cosmopolitan magazine] that Kingston is the place to be. We all know that no one’s going to be looking for another place in Kingston, because it’s going to be impossible to find.”

“If we can’t find anyplace else,” Madeo said at that meeting, “then we’re going to have to take care of you and put you in a hotel while we renovate your unit.”

According to Hirsch, a hotel would not be a viable option for a permanent relocation as it’s not comparable housing, which is a standard raised by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Act of 1970, (URA) the federal law which governs the displacement or temporary relocation of tenants receiving federal subsidies. The same law also raises questions about the 90 day notice the KHA has been mailing to the Penn Court residents.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the notice may not be issued unless a comparable replacement dwelling is available and the displaced person is informed of its location. Received by tenants, the notice does refer to relocation within other KHA owned housing units without specifying the location.

Not clearly understood by those tenants facing relocation are the motivations behind the KHA’s push for conversion of various properties in its portfolio of Section 9 housing over to Section 8, and the financial opportunities which become available once a public authority partners with a private developer. 

Rennie Scott-Childress, majority leader of the City of Kingston Common Council, and chair this year of the KHA, explains the commission’s partnership with Mountco like this. 

“The issue is the board recognizes that A, we need to renovate a lot of our properties. They haven’t been renovated in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So the question is, how do we get renovations done? So you put out a request for proposals and it could be a not-for-profit, it could be a for-profit. From the replies, we look and see which one is going to give us the best deal from our perspective. A company like Mountco, their money doesn’t come from rental profits. They don’t make a profit, per se, from selling their interests back to us. Their money comes from being able to use tax credits. But in order to qualify, they have to be at least part-owner. These are all state rules. And so that means we’re in league with a private company, but we are not becoming a private company. Keep in mind, we are a state authority and we have certain requirements by the state of what we have to do, so we can’t become a private entity. The main thing is that Mountco is looking for those tax credits.”

When the Division of Homeland and Community Renewal wouldn’t sign off last September on the previous redevelopment plans Mountco had pursued to demolish and redevelop the three buildings in the Rondout Gardens, Mountco switched to the demolition and redevelopment of Penn Court instead.

“The State has their own priorities,” Madeo explained during a September KHA meeting. “They pushed back on Rondout Gardens and want the state sites prioritized.”

Phase two of a of three-part renovation plan was reconfigured to lead with the renovation of Colonial Gardens and Wiltwyck Gardens as well as the demolition and redevelopment of Penn court, all state subsidized properties which would realize 223 units of rehab and new construction with 60 units; 50 of them at Penn Court.

During the process of large scale, multi-unit renovations, developers find it handy to have a few vacancies to fall back on. Madeo calls them ‘swing units’.

“And then I circulate those units going forward, when that unit becomes vacant again, the other tenant goes back there. In the industry, it’s called checkerboarding. You move this person here, you move that person there…”

This complicated logistical puzzle may lend insight to multiple occasions in which members of the KHA or employees of Mountco have been heard to muse openly about whether some tenants might not prefer to move out of the county – or even out of the state – if they could.

Any of the tenants renting units at the Rondout Gardens affected by the ‘Streamlined Voluntary Conversion’(SVC) which the HCR signed off on last September will be able to take HUD funding with them in search of affordable rents in the private market, no matter how far flung, wherever they can find them.

Scott-Childress explained during an interview in July. “They’re both Section 8. It’s all under the same rubric. Some of those vouchers go with a person. So if you got the personal one, here in Kingston. You could say, oh, you know what? I have to move to San Diego. You could take it with you to San Diego.”

Mr. Moran for one, would be game for a big move. “If they moved me to Florida, I would love to go,” he says. “I miss the beach.”

But he’s an outlier. The majority of the Penn Court tenants interviewed want to stay right here in the City of Kingston. So if it’s to be a permanent relocation to Rondout Gardens, like Director Wilcox said, that’ll work, they say. Wherever it will be, as long as it’s in the KHA portfolio, there’s no place like home.

Addendum:

With legal counsel listening in (Jeff Sculley, Catania, Mahon & Rider), Executive Director of the KHA Harolda Wilcox and Vice President of Mountco John Madeo answered questions from reporters outside a City of Kingston Planning Board meeting on Nov 18.

Rokosz Most: When are you guys going to submit an application to HCR that specifies where the tenants are going to be moved to?

John Madeo: We’ve already submitted a preliminary, what’s called a technical application submission. We’re waiting for the state to respond. Once they give us their comments, then we’ll submit the application. We’re hoping that’s going to happen within the next 30 days, before the end of the year, let’s say.

RM: Do you think you jumped the gun sending the 90-day letters to the tenants before the planning board has agreed to grant you waivers?

Harolda Wilcox: No. Legally, we had to. Even if we don’t get a closing, which we’re hopeful of, we have to have the 90-days out prior. It’s HUD rules.

RM:  At the last planning board meeting, you indicated that all 32 households would be moved to Rondout Gardens. I don’t know if that’s plausible.

Madeo: I don’t know if that’s what we said.

RM: That’s what [Wilcox] said.

Wilcox: We’re working on it. We have units held for them.

RM: But 32 vacancies at Rondout Gardens. It’s probably going to be more likely spread around the KHA portfolio, I would think.

Wilcox: Most of them are going to be at Rondout Gardens.

Madeo: But if we have to move somebody someplace else, we will.

RM: And you all don’t see anybody ending up in hotels?

Madeo: I don’t think so, no. I mean, that’s a last resort. And it’s our obligation to relocate people. But that’s not where we’d like to put people. 

RM: They’re permanently relocated, but with an option to return.

Wilcox: Yes. That’s the idea. 

Madeo: That’s a fair way to put it. But it’s not 32 [vacancies]

RM: No?

Madeo: There are 32 units, but they’re not all occupied. 

RM: How many are vacant? 

Wilcox: Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you. I’ll let you know. 

The project to demolish Penn Court and redevelop the property requires waivers because at the size and scope that Mountco intends is currently at odds with the newly adopted form-based code which requires any new buildings conform with the context and character of a surrounding neighborhood.

Board member Robert Jacobsen explained the board’s hesitation so far to grant the waivers.

“If we Grant these major waivers then how does that affect other projects that come before us? Because we’re basically ignoring what the code is. I am in favor of the housing. I am in favor of the building. I think it’s a great building but it’s a building that’s really meant for our Midtown District that has an overlay district,” said Jacobsen. “It has height requirements that allow for that type of height, or even higher. It just doesn’t feel like it’s the right place. It’s a very densely populated residential two story complex through all of colonial gardens, Stuyvesant Apartment and the whole code that was formulated around the existing structures wants to keep it that way. and yet, with this building, you’re just packing so much in and that that’s what I’m struggling with.” 

Rokosz Most is a freelance journalist.  You can follow his work at Autoeroticgentrification on substack

Helpful materials for City of Kingston charter reform discussion

by

By Rebecca Martin

A municipal charter is the legal document that defines the organization, powers, functions, and essential procedures of city government, and the City of Kingston Common Council might be picking up charter reform again in 2024.

Laws and Rules Council Committee in March, 2024

“Kingston lawmakers mull charter revision” in the Daily Freeman

If they are successful, it will be the first time since the fall of 1993/1994 when the city first adopted a city manager form of government. The outcome was abruptly overturned a year later, and Kingston became a strong mayor form of government (which continues to govern us today).   You can read the whole sordid tale by Tom Benton.

The politics of that time period left us with a charter that is plagued with problems, and that we have raised for over a decade. In our efforts to find original materials and learn the truth about the trajectory of that process , we’ve collected many helpful materials that are now accessible to the public.   It includes timelines, a copy of Kingston’s early charter (with amendments from 1970 – 1985), the proposed City Manager form of government revision from 1993 and more.

For those interested in following along, please review the KingstonCitizens.org City of Kingston Charter process for all sorts of helpful materials on Kingston’s Charter.

 

June Primary: Q&A on Early Voting and Primary Day

by

 

Early voting has begun in a closed Democratic primary election contest in Kingston.  It includes a citywide Mayoral race and seats in Wards 1 and 4.  

In all of Ulster County, those who can vote early in the June primary include (as per the Ulster County Board of Elections): All registered Democrats in: Shandaken, Woodstock, Saugerties, Kingston, New Paltz, Gardiner and Hurley; All registered Republicans in: Shawangunk; All registered Working Families Party in: Saugerties.

Early Voting: June 17 – 25
Primary Election: June 27


If your municipality is not listed, it’s because there is not more than one candidate seeking a spot on the ballot for any given party during the General Election ballot in November.

Here are a few helpful key questions and answers to help you during this primary season.   Get out and vote!

 

  1. What is a primary election? In a primary election, each political party selects its candidates to run for office during the general election in November. The candidates who get the highest number of votes in the primary election go on to run in the general election.

 

  1. Can anyone vote in a “closed” primary? During a closed primary, only voters registered with that party can take part and vote.

 

  1. Do I have a primary to vote in? Not all election districts have a primary.  If there is not more than one person trying to seek a particular party line on the general election ballot, there would not be a primary.

 

  1. What if I am not registered in the party that I want to cast a vote in? In NYS, as a current, registered voter, you must have changed your party affiliation by Feb 12 to the party you want to vote with.  If that is not done,  you will not be registered with that party and you cannot vote because in NYS primaries are closed.

 

  1. Can I vote for a person if I do not live in that municipality in a primary election? A voter may only vote within their local voting district for any election.

 

  1. Can I register today and vote? NYS currently does not have same day registration.  This year, that was only available on June 17 as the last day to register as a NEW voter. Under the current law, only on that one day could you register and vote.

 

  1. What happens if I am not in the voter rolls and I did register to vote? You can vote by affidavit ballot, which is then counted by the Board of Elections.  If you have met the criteria to vote after their investigation your vote will be counted.  If your registration does not fit the criteria, it cannot be counted.  The BOE will then send you a letter explaining why so you can correct it for the next election.

 

  1. Why are there no referendums on the ballot? Referendums appear on the ballot in General Elections in November and not during a primary contest. 

 

  1. Why would I not have a ballot to vote on? In the city of Kingston, there is a citywide democratic primary for Mayor. That means that every registered democrat can vote during this primary election.  If you live in Wards 1 and 4, your ballot will include a primary contest for your democratic representative on the Kingston common council.  

 

For more information, visit: 

Early Voting Information: 
https://elections.ulstercountyny.gov/early-voting/

Frequently Asked Questions:
https://elections.ulstercountyny.gov/frequently-asked-questions/

Find your polling place:
https://vic.ntsdata.com/home/ulster

Voter Registration Deadlines: 
https://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingDeadlines.html

 

 

 

City of Kingston Form-Based-Code and the real barrier to creating affordable housing

by

By Rebecca Martin

At the recent Kingston Common Council Laws and Rules Committee meeting on April 19, Director of Housing Initiatives  Bartek Starodaj provided an update on Kingston Forward and Kingston’s Form-Based-Code environmental review process, announcing that the zoning code would be in front of the common council (the lead agency of the review process) soon for a vote. There was alot presented that included Parking Standards, SD Waterfront, Density, Short Term Rentals in Accessory Dwelling Units, Minimum Parking Amendments and Inclusionary Zoning Provisions.

The Kingston common council will be presented with a final Common Council Zoning Discussion #3: Implementation and Enforcement “deep dive” on Monday, April 24 at 6:30pm.  The meeting is open to the public.


HUD vs. ACS for Kingston AMIs

The Inclusionary Zoning Provision segment outlined that for seven (7) or more apartment units, the Area Median Income (AMI) is being proposed at 80% for affordable and 120% for workhouse housing units (the percentage for workhouse in the 2.0 version increased by 20% in the 3.0 version).  

120% AMI is considered market rate housing. 

According to Starodaj, the AMI was set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) where both the City of Kingston and Ulster County AMI numbers were the same. But Ward 9 Council Member Michelle Hirsch pointed out that the American Community Survey (ACS) data, which is an ongoing survey that provides data each year about the social, economic, housing and demographic characteristics of communities, shows that the City of Kingston’s AMI is nearly $30,000 less than Ulster County’s.  For a household of four people, 80% AMI in Kingston was $47,072 while Ulster County was $76,800.  Hirsch also shared concern that those who rely on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), a program that enables the lowest income households in NYS to rent decent, safe housing in the private housing market by providing rental assistance, would unlikely be able to find or afford an apartment in the City of Kingston.  

Meanwhile, Bartek expressed concern that by “deepening” these percentages for those living in Kingston under 80% AMI could lead to chasing away developers from building in Kingston.

A new housing study for Kingston?

The City of Kingston has changed dramatically since it adopted its most recent comprehensive plan on April 5, 2016 and Kingston, like most communities around the US, got hammered during and following the pandemic.  Council member Hirsch asked if the City of Kingston had a housing study that would look at all the AMIs and current housing stock in the community to provide the city with a plan to help make good decisions about setting housing standards now.  “The whole point of Form-Based-Code is to provide housing for people that need housing and can’t afford it.  The incomes in Kingston don’t line up with what is being proposed here.”  she said.

PILOAH and Affordable Housing Fund

“The fear is that if the developer can’t find a way to cover affordable units in it’s development they will walk away.” – Bartek Starodaj 

Recently, KingstonCitizens.org wrote about the city proposing a policy that would allow developers to be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with a Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing. It included an Affordable Housing Fund as a placeholder without any clarity on policy and procedure that turned up in recent version (3.0) of the Kingston Form-Based-Code.  Later, we stumbled across a request for proposal (RFP) from December of 2022 with a timeline for the city to hire a consultant for guidance on creating the fund by April even though a PILOAH hadn’t yet been adopted.

We followed up with Bartek in an email to ask what had become of the RFP where we copied local housing advocates and members of our common council. He confirmed that the city had established an RFP committee for this project, which included a representative from the Common Council (when we asked Council President Andrea Shaut, who would typically assign a council member to serve in this manner, she told us that she wasn’t aware of the committee or who from the council participated) and after reviewing the submission (s?) earlier this year ultimately declined to hire a consultant.  We asked for minutes and to learn who served on that committee, what consultants responded and why the city chose not to proceed.  After several attempts, we were told to submit a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in order to receive that information.  

During the Laws and Rules committee meeting, Barbara Graves-Poller, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel, said that she would provide the council with information about the PILOAH and the Affordable Housing Fund in the coming days. Hopefully during tomorrow’s public “deep dive” that information can be shared publicly. 


Parking requirements are one of the real barriers to creating affordable housing in Kingston

Michael Kodransky, a new resident in the City of Kingston and an urban planner, waited hours that evening in order to provide the council with his COMMENTS on what the city needed to do in order to remove barriers for the creation of more affordable housing.  

‘’What stirred my desire to share comments, is being alarmed around parking requirements of the Kingston and Ulster County planning board recommendation around the minimum parking requirements. I have been working with around 10 other people (residents) in Kingston who are equally alarmed. They include parking similar to euclidean zoning and that is not what form-based-code is. If you haven’t been following the news lately (Harpers Magazine: Lots to Lose), parking is in the news quite a lot, and the reason is is because housing crisis in Kingston is a national crisis, there’s a shortage of housing all across the nation and it’s forcing municipalities to reevaluate their parking regulations if they exist. And those municipalities like Buffalo, Hartford, that are abandoning their parking regulations are seeing new development.”

“At this juncture in Kingston to consider putting in parking requirements when there is a housing shortage, when we know according to the 2030 climate action plan that 40% of climate emissions come from driving trips, studies increasingly show that the inclusion of parking undermines multi-model policies. We don’t have any travel demand management ordinance in the city or any understanding of existing private parking that currently exists. It seems like the planning board at the city and county did a copy and paste job from guide books that are being abandoned all over the county. It’s like they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been happening over the last 20 years in the urban planning space. Every week, a new municipality around the country is abandoning their parking requirements…to see the planning board in Kingston and Ulster County recommend to put them in does not make any sense.”

“I encourage the common council to seriously look into this issue, because it increases the cost of construction, and it doesn’t seem as though the planning board on either the city or county level has spoken to any small or medium scale developers to see how this impacts their financial feasibility or banks or insurance to understand what the underwriting for small scale developments would be with these types of requirements. Essentially, these councils and boards are making market intervention recommendations without actually understanding the market implications and the implications on the production of housing. The costs of these types of requirements trickle down to everything else. Services, too.”

“That is correct.” said Ward 3 council member Rennie Scott Childress.  “We agree with you.”  said Ward 4 Rita Worthington

“I encourage you to accept the code that the consultant proposed with no parking requirements. There’s a reason they did that. They listened to what people were saying and what the policy outcomes were that we asked for which is affordable housing. A place that’s connected and affordable. This is an irrational burden for developers and the community. Listen to what the consultants proposed, there is a reason. The public was asking for these outcomes that were reflected in the consultant’s recommendations.”

Upcoming Public Hearing on Kingston Forward Citywide Form-Based Code DGEIS on March 23

by

By Rebecca Martin

On Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm, a public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. (“DGEIS”) will occur at Kingston City Hall. Currently, the hearing is scheduled to occur in the Common Council’s conference Room 1 indicating that the city is not anticipating many residents to attend.  

UPDATE: The meeting will be moved to council chambers

KingstonCitizens.org has requested that it be moved to council chambers in order to accommodate more members of the public. Community members can make the same request by calling or writing Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives at (845) 334-3928 or bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov 

“Resolution 50 of 2023, that passed on March 7, 2023 when the Common Council, the lead agency for the Form-Based Code State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), voted to accept the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) as complete in scope and content. The Common Council also voted to schedule a public hearing on Thursday, March 23th with an open public comment period that will continue through April 10th. ” 

An important moment for the public and housing in the City of Kingston

Although we are nearing the end of the citywide Form-Based Code process, the Kingston Common Council as Lead Agency of the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) as a type 1 action has an obligation to hear from and respond to the public in its determination of whether or not the DGEIS is either adequate or deficient.  

We continue to fully support a Form-Based Code for Kingston as well as the city and the council in its work to create a unique code for the Kingston community.  To do that, we have identified some questions and concerns out ahead of Thursday’s public hearing. It’s important that the public is confident that the council is guided by Kingston-centric data that takes into account pandemic conditions so that the code, once passed, is inclusive to make housing affordable for all.

Affordable Housing vs. Low Income Housing

In the City of Kingston, we have often heard people speak about Affordable Housing and Low Income housing interchangeably when they are not the same.

Affordable housing defines properties that take up less than 30% of a renter’s income. Low Income housing describes residences designed to support renters struggling to keep up with rising rental costs. These distinctions are important for our new code so that Low Income families are not left behind.

According to HUD’s Median Family Income Calculation Methodology and Income limit definitions, Low Income ranges from 51% – 80% Annual Median Income (“AMI”). If the city sets Affordable Housing at 80% AMI, then according to these figures, we are at the high end of AMI for Low Income housing and may not be attainable in this climate for our Low Income families in Kingston. Furthermore, if the city plans to privatize its public housing authority units as it is currently doing, what will happen to the Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) and Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) families living here now?  We need more definitions, requirements and incentives for other categories in order to address the housing crisis in the City of Kingston.

Ulster County vs. City of Kingston Median Income 

In the DGEIS, Ulster County rather than City of Kingston median incomes are guiding affordable.  At a glance, according to the US Census (2021), the City of Kingston median income is $58,840 while in Ulster County for the same period is $71,010. That sample alone proves that there are tangible differences between the two.

So why is the code using Ulster County rather than City of Kingston data for the city’s unique zoning code?  In the public comments of the Kingston Community Review (Draft 2.0, line 105), staff wrote that the Ulster County Area Median Income figure is referenced “because HUD does not publish AMI levels specific to Kingston,” and that, “the current draft is simplified to reference the applicable HUD definition.”  

Is the council confident that HUD does not publish AMI levels for Kingston, and is it in our community’s best interest to “simplify” during a housing crisis to turn Ulster County’s AMI into law?  What is the Ulster County AMI doing or not doing to provide opportunities and access for more people who live in the City of Kingston now?

Developers may be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing

A Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing (“PILOAH”) is included in the Kingston Form Based Code 3.0, page 114 , where the criteria is not clearly defined, as criteria would be set and adopted by the Kingston Common Council at some later date.  Here, the developer is provided an option to make a Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing instead of providing on-site affordable or workforce housing units into an Affordable Housing Fund.

On March 16, Bartok Starodaj provided the council with a presentation on the housing changes to the Form-Based-Code and at that time, was not able to go into any detail about the municipalities where a PILOAH is successfully implemented or provide examples of policy of how an Affordable Housing Fund is used. 

Since an Executive Order was issued in December 2020, all applicants requesting site plan approval with the City of Kingston’s Planning board building more than 5 units of housing anywhere in the City are required to have at least 10% of its units affordable without any loopholes.

Where did the PILOAH come from and is it wise for the council turn it into law in the code before policies are clearly defined? What should be considered is continuing to require 10% affordable units for all housing projects as well as to include more income ranges than is currently required now as affordable.

Council sets a special meeting to approve the Stony Run Apartments deal ahead of the Form Based Code public hearing as well as the code for housing criteria becoming law.  

As the City of Kingston works on defining housing for development in its code, the council has set-up a special meeting on March 22nd to consider approving a deal with Aker Cos that would allow the developer to raise rents in vacant units unilaterally to the maximum amount allowed by the agreement or 120% AMI. An approval for 120% AMI in any capacity would preempt both the public hearing on March 23 and the Form-Based-Code process before it concludes.

Next steps

1. Attend the upcoming public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm at Kingston City Hall. If you cannot attend in person, written comments may be emailed to Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives, via bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov or dropped off at the City Clerk’s Office. Consider the following items on housing:

  • Affordable housing and low income housing are not interchangeable. The code should include more definitions, requirements and incentives for all categories of housing in order to accommodate the housing crisis in the City of Kingston;
  • Kingston’s code should be informed by the most up-to-date data for the City of Kingston median income and not Ulster County; 
  • A Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing and Affordable Housing Fund needs policies before being included in the code as law. Otherwise it should be removed.

2. Attend the Special Common Council meeting on March 22nd at 7:30pm at Kingston City Hall.

  • Request that the council table the Aker deal until it has had the opportunity to respond to all additional questions during the Form-Based-Code SEQR process and adopts Kingston’s new code into law.

The City of Kingston’s drinking water supply is Cooper Lake

by

Photo credits: Kevin Smith, Woodstock Land Conservancy 8/24/22

By Rebecca Martin

Cooper Lake is located in the Town of Woodstock and is the largest natural lake in the Catskill Mountains. It stores water from the Mink Hollow Stream in addition to water that reaches the lake from its nearly 9 square-mile watershed. 

It is also the City of Kingston’s primary drinking water source. 

The City of Kingston Water Department was founded on May 27, 1895 by a special act of the New York State Legislature to provide potable water to the residents of the City of Kingston. It is a financially and administratively independent department within the City of Kingston funded by drinking water users (and not tax dollars) and is governed by the Board of Water Commissioners. The Board is a continuously sitting body and each member is appointed to a five (5) year term by the Mayor. The Mayor is also a voting member of the Board and the Kingston Common Council assigns a liaison in January of each year to monitor their business. 

The Early History of Water, Woodstock and Kingston by Richard Heppner

Our area is in the midst of a drought. At the same time, important dam construction at Cooper Lake is underway in order to bring the dam into compliance to meet the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations. It’s a project that’s been in the works for many years.

In preparation, last July Cooper Lake was lowered by 10 feet below its maximum capacity and that level must be maintained throughout the dam work that is scheduled through November of 2023. The process began before our current drought emergency that has escalated and was raised to Stage II on August 11.  

At times like these, Kingston is fortunate to have a secondary drinking water source – the Ashokan Reservoir. Many communities that I work with haven’t got a plan B. Although the infrastructure is not yet connected, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has run pipes under Route 28 at Basin Road and part way down Sawkill so that the Kingston Water Department would be able to tap into the reservoir if they ever needed to. They never have –  until now. 

In the early 2000’s, the Town of Ulster signed a long standing agreement to purchase 700,000 gallons per day (GPD) whether they used all of it or not from the Kingston Water Department making them one of our largest drinking water users. That agreement was recently brought to a halt because of the seriousness of the drought. Now the town is working to provide Kingston with 200,000 GPD to help us through this critical time, even when they are also experiencing drought conditions and cut-backs.  The residents in the Town of Ulster deserve our gratitude.

Kingston Water Department and “surplus water”

Nearly 10 years ago, the City of Kingston was on the brink of selling 1.75 million GPD of our municipal drinking water supply to the California based company Niagara Bottling at Tech City in the Town of Ulster.  Had they succeeded, they would have secured their first large drinking water bottling facility in our region and would have taken every drop for all the years they were here to bottle and to sell. For those following the changes at the Tech City site, Niagara would have likely impacted the recent trajectory of any progress seen today. And given Niagara’s track record, we might have been in a heap of trouble now. It’s one thing to negotiate with your neighbors. It’s a whole other matter to do the same during drought conditions with a corporation who have savvy lawyers and deep pockets. Luckily, with the support of many community members, organizations and elected officials, we nipped that proposal in the bud in just five months and sent Niagara packing.

Side bar: We still have Niagara Bottling on our google alert. We’ve been following them around the country for the last seven years and share information about our strategies with municipalities interested who are struggling as we were. We’ve had some success, too – in communities located in Texas and Wisconsin.

Back in 2014 when Niagara was a looming threat, we learned about Kingston’s safe yield (by definition, the safe yield of any water supply is the maximum dependable water supply that can be withdrawn continuously from a supply during a period of years in which the driest period or periods of greatest deficiency in water supply is likely to occur) being 6.1 million GPD. For Kingston’s drinking water supply, that period continues to be the drought of 1957 that lasted 3 months. Kingston’s safe yield was said to be accurate when we inquired. We were told changes were slow. 

Also in 2014, community member’s concerns were said to be “hysterical”, as the City of Kingston had surplus water to sell and the East Coast was water rich.  Their messaging gained no traction with us.

Here is some interesting data from old posts about droughts in the Hudson Valley:

10153997_323039804545358_7056360159773688521_n

Given the recent trends, is it time for us to take another look at our safe yield and consider climate? I think so. Although Cooper Lake was reduced 10 feet to its maximum capacity last year for important dam work, it seems clear that no one anticipated a drought a year later that would exacerbate our current situation.

Drinking Water Budgets

There is such a thing as drinking water budgets, or an accounting of all the water that flows into and out of a project area. The Kingston Water department once told us that they have one. Through our FOILs in 2014 and 2015 we never successfully acquired a copy.  If our safe yield is 6.1 million GPD then we don’t want to overuse or over promise what we can deliver.  A water budget keeps track of our current residential and business use and should also take into account future development project commitments.

In a report from 2007 for the proposed Hudson River Landing Development, it stated that the City of Kingston had a daily water usage of 3.28 million GPD.  In 2014, we were told that that number increased to 3.5 million GPD. Where are we today?  Outside of our own concerns about drought and drinking water, how does Cooper Lake’s current levels inform us about groundwater resources and the rapidly dropping water table area-wide? What about our neighbors public supply wellheads and thousands of private wells?

We’re sharing these photos – thanks to Kevin Smith of the Woodstock Land Conservancy – to illustrate that this crisis is real. The photos speak for themselves and it’s heartbreaking to see this natural waterbody in such a state. Beyond that, the water that flows through your pipes to your home or business is treated drinking water from Cooper Lake meant to keep you nourished and alive. At the very least, it’s a teaching moment. We shouldn’t ever take drinking water for granted. 

Our drinking water supply levels are a real emergency. Follow the requests from City of Kingston officials and be mindful every day of how you borrow from Cooper Lake. Consider everyone and everything.

In addition to previous mandatory restrictions on water usage, the following measures will be in effect:

  • NO use of water from the KWD to fill or maintain the water level in any swimming pool.
  • NO use of water from the KWD to water any lawn, golf course, ornamental shrub or plant, except that water may be used to irrigate, from a hand held container only, vegetables or fruits grown for human consumption.
  • All air conditioning systems utilizing water from the KWD should be operated only in accordance with hourly restrictions established by the Superintendent.
  • All large, nonresidential water consumers must immediately reduce usage by at least 20%.

Fair Street Extension Stipulation Does Not Prohibit Virtual Public Hearing

by

“But Shaut said that the city’s hands were effectively tied by Mott’s order. ‘We have to do it in person because that’s what the judge told us to do,’ said Shaut, who said she consulted city legal attorneys about the issue. So unless the judge tells us something different, it will be in-person.’”  Council to Take Back Fair Street Extension, For Now (Kingston Wire)  

By Rebecca Martin

Yesterday, KingstonCitizens.org launched a petition to request that the City hold the upcoming Fair Street Extension public hearing as either a hybrid or virtual meeting in order for the community to have the opportunity to participate during a time of high Covid infections. In 24 hours, 88 residents have signed. 

In a recent news story, President Andrea Shaut says that the city’s “hands are tied” and that the public hearing must be in person due to a directive by Judge Mott. However, there is nothing in the stipulation that suggests the meeting should be in-person only. 

In the transcript of the meeting during which the stipulation was settled, it is clear that the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel requested the in-person meeting, not Judge Mott, who would go on to provide an opinion, not an order: “Look, it’s you guys who are complaining about it. If there is going to be any potential for a problem in this next one, I think that can be totally averted if it’s in-person.”  

The public shouldn’t be punished at a time of high Covid infections by being denied the option to participate virtually.   Please SIGN THE PETITION to request a hybrid or virtual Fair Street Extension public hearing on January 12.

New Temporary Restraining Order On Fair Street Extension Vote Unless Legally Compliant Public Hearing on the Proposed Road Abandonment is Held

by

In a LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3rd submitted by attorney Victoria Polidoro from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro, a request was made to the Common Council regarding the public hearing for 9-17 & 21 N. Front Street and Fair Street Extension.

“On December 2, 2021, the City attempted to hold such a public hearing which took place at a hybrid remote/in-person meeting pursuant to the modifications to the Open Meetings Law (the “OML”) by NYS Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021 (the “Chapter 417”). However, due to various issues, including but not limited to technical issues, the purported Hearing violated the Open Meetings Law, did not afford the public an adequate opportunity to meaningfully participate, and cannot form any basis for a Common Council vote on the discontinuance of the Street. For these reasons, the Common Council must schedule a new public hearing during a proper meeting conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Polidoro said that the meeting failed to comply with the current Open Meetings Law. “Throughout the meeting, the audio broadcast over both Zoom and YouTube dropped repeatedly, and often during public comments. Entire speakers provided comments in person that were never broadcast over Zoom or online. As a result, the many members of the public that chose to attend the Hearing remotely were deprived of the opportunity to contemporaneously listen to what occurred at the meetings in direct violation of the OML. Despite having been promised that those online would be called intermittently with those testifying in person, the Common Council instead chose to remedy their technical issues by calling all commenters present in the Council Chambers first. Those physically present in the Common Council Chambers disproportionately consisted of the developers spearheading the project, their close associates, and union members in the region who stand to gain from the Project being constructed. The overwhelming testimony in favor of the closure of Fair Street Extension and in support of the project likely had a chilling effect on the many speakers who testified via Zoom against the proposal who were mostly relegated to the last hour of public testimony as a result and had a disparate impact on their ability to participate as a result. This deprivation materially affects the legitimacy of the public hearing because the public was unable to meaningfully participate.” she wrote. “As a result of, among other issues, the hour-plus of technical difficulties and delays, the Hearing commenced much later than was scheduled to, was paused several times, and ultimately dragged on late into the night with no apparent end in sight. We observed multiple remote participants leave the meeting before they were given an opportunity to participate because the Hearing was being unreasonably delayed and because it was unclear whether they would ever actually be given an opportunity to speak.”

“We appeal to the Council’s sense of decency and equity,” wrote Polidoro. “Its members know that what occurred at the Hearing was a technical disaster and that it directly affected the ability of the public to participate. The Councilmembers are public servants that have an obligation to act for the benefit of the residents of Kingston and that obligation has not yet been fulfilled with respect to the abandonment of the Street. Basic principles of fairness should lead the Council to schedule a new public hearing in order to solve these issues and prevent a tainted meeting from purportedly supporting the decision to give away a public street for private development with minimal, if any, benefit to the public. The Project is months, if not years away from ever receiving final approvals and would not benefit from the Street being closed in the interim. There is absolutely no need for the Council to rush to vote on the abandonment at this time. Any decision to plow ahead with the abandonment despite a patently deficient public hearing raises obvious questions regarding the Council’s intent in doing so.”

If the Council moves ahead with a vote at its next meeting, an action will be filed at 3:00pm on Monday, December 6, 2021, at the Ulster County Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, a temporary restraining order enjoining the City of Kingston Common Council from considering the Resolution to Discontinue Fair Street Extension at their meeting to scheduled to be held on December 7, 2021 or at any time until a new and legally compliant public hearing on the proposed road abandonment is held.

“Hybrid” Public Hearing on Fair Street Extension Leaves Residents out of Discussion. Testimony Includes Peer Review for Traffic Study

by

The image above is a page from the LETTER submitted by Victoria Polidoro (12/2) that includes a peer review of the original traffic study that guided, in part, the Kingstonian environmental review process. The peer review begins on page 47.

On Thursday, the Kingston Common Council held a public hearing on a proposal for “partial abandonment” of Fair Street Extension. The hybrid meeting (held both online and in person at City Hall) was over three hours long due to technical problems that created big gaps in the audio and streaming service. Many of the public in attendance gave up and logged out of zoom (there were nearly 100 people on zoom earlier in the evening).

City of Kingston’s lack of preparedness for Hybrid Meeting

The lack of preparedness by the city for such an important public hearing has got to be highlighted. In September, Governor Hochul extended virtual public meetings. Education Council Consortium Co-Chair Shino Tanikawa said “Conducting hybrid meetings has been extremely challenging for Citywide and Community Education Councils and participation by the members of the public has plummeted since the OML waiver expired in late June. To exacerbate the issue, the infection rates have climbed to over 4%…making many parents weary of in-person meetings. I am deeply grateful for Governor Hochul’s initiative to allow public bodies to return to virtual meetings. We will be able to enhance participation and fulfill our responsibilities more effectively and without compromising our health.”

Why is the city hosting hybrid meetings before they are able, and why go back to hybrid right now anyway with new infections on the rise in Ulster County?

At least one member of the public, Kingston City resident and President of the Board of Education (an elected position) James Shaughnessy, read his comment while the streaming system was down. It lead to his testimony not being captured on video. Upon learning this, Jim called into zoom and asked for the opportunity to re-read his comments so that they were recorded and was denied.

We were able to get a copy of his testimony where he writes:

“I would like to make a few general comments about the Kingstonian project.  It was one year ago today that the Kingston city school board voted against approving the Kingston PILOT.  I personally had aspersions cast against me by the developers and several prominent politicians for my vote.  I would like to say that I have always silently objected to saying this project is by local developers.  I am of the opinion that the Bonura Hospitality Group is the prime behind this project.  I have often wondered if Joe Bonura, Jr has ever slept a night in Kingston. Thankfully, the IDA didn’t approve a 99 year PILOT like the Bonura Group was granted for a Poughkeepsie apartment complex.”

New Peer Review for Kingstonian project Traffic Study

What was important and new that evening was a peer review of the first traffic study, that in part guided the Kingstonian environmental review process, created by Brian Weinberg, PE of Langan Engineering. Weinberg brought to light several important key points during his testimony on Thursday:

1. “The traffic impact study by the Kingstonian developers only looked at one peak hour, while you would typically study the two peak hours, that would typically include both the morning and evening peak hours, but the study only looked at the PM peak hour”

2.   “Key intersections were left out of the study area and thus the intersection capacity analysis was not completed. Along these corridors include certain intersections along Green Street, John Street and Clinton Street that would see between approximately 35 and 100 additional vehicle trips per hour….left out assessments of critical links such as Frog Alley and North Front Street where there would be a substantial number of diverter vehicles that would turn left from Schwenk Drive onto Frog Alley. Along Frog Alley there’s a fire station, and with the high volume of additional diverted traffic that would be sent onto Frog Alley could potentially affect fire station operations.”

3. “During construction of the project while Fair Street is closed and before any other pedestrian accommodations are built, pedestrians would have to travel a longer way to get between Schwenk Drive and North Front street which could be difficult especially for pedestrians with disabilities.”

Public comment period open until Monday 12/6 at 5:00pm. Council set to vote on Fair Street Extension on Tuesday

The council left the public comment period open through Monday, December 6th at 5:00pm, a standard practice. The legislation is on their agenda to discuss during Caucus and then the resolution is likely going to be up for a vote during their full council meeting on Tuesday. There is an open public comment period during the full council meeting where the public will have a final opportunity to advocate. Good Cause Eviction is also on the agenda, with a first reading of this local law (a vote would follow after its second reading in January).

Facebook Event: Fair Street Ext. Public Hearing Comments Open until 12/6 at 5pm.
Facebook Event: CoK Council Caucus 12/6 at 7pm.
Facebook Event: CoK Full Council Meeting and Open Public Comment 12/7 at 7:30pm.

Public Comment Highlights

Jennifer O’Donnell
“How many of you saw the film The Lost Rondout made by our friends and neighbors? It was a beautiful and sad story about our community being torn apart by big interests, bigger than ourselves. Spaces that we all shared and paid for through work, through taxes, through our small family businesses, and by the promises of economic development were destroyed by some very powerful government actors.”

Cheryl Schneider
“If the Kingstonian can’t make a buck doing it the legit way without us giving away our streets and our schools and our tax money, then maybe they have a sucky business plan and they need to reconsider and move out of the way and make room for somebody who can…this is not about the people of Kingston it’s about profit for a handful of people who happen to be real cozy with a lot of elected officials.”

Tanya Garment
“This development is going to be a pretty sweet deal free land and not only the parking lot also a public park and now a public street…they will get money to rebuild the warehouse that Herzogs changed from a building and made it to a warehouse. They’re going to get money to pay for the foundation of the structure above the free land. They’re going to get money to build a bridge to funnel people into Jordan’s other (Herzog’s) property. They’re going to get excusals from offering the amount of parking that our code currently requires. They’re going to get tax breaks to cover the parking that they are building and then it’s also in an Opportunity Zone so theoretically the Kingstonian project could be a 100% covered by public funds….We are just talking about this now, towards the end of the process, as this is the way that the city determined the process. The process did take a long time, part of that was the DRI process and people did try to talk about the closing of the street at that time but the elected officials that were questioned about it refused to disclose it.”

Patrick Logan
“The traffic that currently uses Fair Street Extension will necessarily be routed elsewhere, and the associated traffic impacts will be felt throughout the Stockade and cause congestion that will diminish the historic ambiance of the neighborhood. In particular, traffic along Clinton Avenue, a quaint street that served as the city’s very first historic district, will be increased fourfold.”

Sarah Wenk
“Issue of fair street is being brought up now after so much time well some of us have been raising questions about this for years I brought pictures of backed up traffic on North front street to more than one hearing the traffic implications of this closure are enormous and the traffic study was laughable and is quite roundly rebuked by the new study…”

Jennifer Armstrong
“During the November 11th Dover Kohl (Form-Based-Code) presentation, Dover Kohl discussed several big ideas to inform the new zoning code after collaboration with city residents in a series of community engagement events. Included in these core concepts were small scale as of right developments, relationships of buildings to streets and surrounding buildings re-evaluating how much parking we really need, and improved public transport walkability and more complete streets. The progress presentation also highlighted the importance of maintaining small block size and avoiding street closures. Closing Fair Street at this time would be a disservice to the taxpayers investment and rezoning.”

Ilona Ross
“I feel compelled to debunk a few misconceptions about this project. It is not privately funded, it is publicly funded with cash from New York State, property tax breaks and the Opportunity Zone boondoggle. The developer’s own application puts their investment at around six million dollars and the tens if not hundreds of millions that a few rich individuals will take home comes from the pockets of the people of Kingston, Ulster County and New York.”

Rose Quinn
“…I don’t understand why anyone would look to Brad Jordan or anyone at the plaza for any expertise on pedestrian or bicycle safety…”

Justin Hoekstra
“There’s a lot of good development spots where you can build a bunch of luxury housing. Having to tear down an old warehouse and having to shut down and give away a public street in order to build this luxury high-rise in uptown is nuts.”

Victoria Polidoro
“In 2011, the City of Kingston supported a plan which identified the fair street extension as an important roadway connection to uptown Kingston and a potential catalyst for smart redevelopment along Schwenk drive. You are now foreclosing these future smart growth opportunities at the same time that you’re doing a zoning revision by discontinuing the connection between the stockade area and the area immediately outside of it…how can you as members of the common council sworn to act in the public interest approve of this without knowing exactly what will be discontinued and without a plan for what happens between now and potential construction 15 years in the future?”

Rashida Taylor
“Tonight’s meeting should have been postponed as there was a lot of technical difficulties and a lot of people who wanted to make statements who were unfortunately unable to stay through the meeting…this project has never been centered in the community and it doesn’t meet our needs. It’s not for us the real residents of Kingston. The real Kingstonians are being asked to bankroll this project…”

Rebecca Rojer
“I want to express my vehement opposition to the abandonment of Fair Street Extension, as it continues to be the safest and most direct bicycle route to the plaza allowing cyclists to access groceries, UCAT, and the Midtown Linear Trail…I fear our leaders are making a terrible mistake handing this public asset to private developers and for free no less.”

Phil Erner
“Once there was a wicked wicked plan, Kingstonian was its name. To house the wealthy and the few while poor folks could not stand…”

ACTION: Request that the City of Kingston Council President postpone Thursday’s Fair Street Extension public hearing until more information is available

by

By Rebecca Martin

The public is tired of the Kingstonian project. But the meaning of the Fair Street Extension public hearing on Thursday of this week stretches beyond that, and is another blatant example of our local government not doing its job to protect the interests of the community at large. Over the course of many years we’ve watched lawmakers orchestrate the Kingstonian project process to get the result it wants to appease some pretty powerful interests.

Earlier this month, the council was ready to pass a resolution that would allow all of the approvals for a public street to become an entrance ramp to a parking garage (that will be open to the public, but owned privately, though funded with public dollars) for luxury apartments in Uptown Kingston. It was only when an outside lawyer stepped in to present a real legal threat to their business-as-usual that they aborted that plan to find some other way to outwit a potential future lawsuit with teeth. In the meantime, they passed the items that they could last month and waited to tackle the real hardship of ‘abandoning’ a public street (which may or may not even be what they are doing) for a time when they had a new plan in place. Our council president set up a public hearing (Twice. First on 12/9 and then it got moved up to 12/2, likely to accomodate a full council vote on 12/7. Tricky and complicated. How would the public ever know?) without being able to explain what the city was doing.

The public won’t have any clarity until next Monday – or someday in the future when a resolution shows up in the council’s agenda packet – following the public hearing. At which point, the only thing the public can do (if their plan differs from what we know today) is to show up again during the full council meeting to speak during the general public comment period. At which time, the council will already know how it intends to vote. As it stands, your public comment on both occasions will likely not have any impact. It’s simply a box to check to allow the city of Kingston to….avoid a lawsuit.

The public’s strongest position is to write to the council president to request that she pull the public hearing and schedule it for after the time that there is a resolution that outlines clearly what the council intends to do with Fair Street. This advice is not meant to be a tactic. It’s an effort to assure that our lawmakers are upholding good government and process, because we can’t afford to further erode those things, not ever and certainly not now. Our democracy is in a real vulnerable place. If we can’t assure it locally, then it’s going to be tough to imagine we can do it anywhere else. That’s the real emergency.

Write to: City of Kingston Council President: ashaut@kingston-ny.gov and copy your council member.

If lawmakers disagree with this assessment, then ask them to put in writing what they intend to do with Fair Street Extension and to clearly outline the process, including to point to the laws that support that process in our code/charter/state.

A public hearing on the abandonment of Fair Street Extension for the Kingstonian Project and Prevailing Wage

by

WHAT: Common Council Public Hearing: Abandonment of Fair Street Extension for the Kingstonian Project

WHERE: The meeting is hybrid, to be held at Kingston City Hall at 420 Broadway (council chambers) and on ZOOM

Meeting ID: 814 3291 1874
Passcode: 2crVt5vzOr dial in by phone:
+1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 814 3291 1874
Passcode: 57325016

WHEN: Thursday, December 2 at 6:30pm. View the City of Kingston’s FACEBOOK event.

SUGGESTIONS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY: A public hearing seems premature. The city has yet to confirm whether or not Fair Street Extension can be offered for sale before discussing a public bid at fair market value.

By Rebecca Martin

Following an October 14th Common Council Finance and Audit Committee meeting, Kingston lawmakers were poised to approve a plan to abandon and close a portion of Fair Street Extension to through traffic to make way for the Kingstonian proposal, a luxury apartment development in Uptown Kingston, and the centerpiece of Kingston’s Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) that was awarded by former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Just days before the full council planned to vote, Victoria Polidoro of the law firm Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro submitted a letter to the city on behalf of her client, a landowner in Uptown Kingston, that said if lawmakers proceeded as planned the “City will not be following the requisite procedure for the closing of a public street and subsequent conveyance of an interest in the former street bed”. That procedure included a public hearing. The firm threatened a temporary restraining order “until all statutory requirements were followed”. 

“The rights of the public in city streets are inalienable, and may only be sold or conveyed in limited circumstances” she wrote. According to Kingston’s city code and NYS general city law, “…to discontinue a City of Kingston Street, the Code first requires the City Planner to establish a list of streets or portions of streets which are no longer used as ‘public thoroughfares’ and are now vacant”, which is not the case for Fair Street Extension. “The Code then directs the circumstances under which these streets are to be offered for sale, with sale as the only provided for manner of conveying or otherwise disposing of a street.”

“There will be a public hearing before a vote”

Although the City code is clear, the differences of opinion about the process steps to abandon a street by the council has been confusing for the public. Early in October, we were told by Council President Andrea Shaut with certainty that, “…there will be a public hearing before a vote” as outlined in the City code.  However, a week later, the Council Finance and Audit Committee members passed a resolution “endorsing a plan to abandon and close a portion of Fair Street Extension to through traffic” without any discussion about the process and no mention of a public hearing. When a constituent followed up, Ward 3 Alderman Rennie Scott Childress (the democratic majority leader and chair of the Finance and Audit Committee) said “…a public hearing would be called for (only) if the City were selling or otherwise disposing of the property”.

Did Kingston’s Corporation Counsel find some clever new hook? Were our council members being placed in a position to defend their decision by saying that the process doesn’t apply to a street if it is being given away?  A local street, like all infrastructure, is a public good built on generations of investment by Kingston families. How could our city be so frivolous?

Prevailing Wage and former Governor Cuomo’s exemption for Downtown Revitalization Initiative projects like the Kingstonian

Although the City of Kingston set the original public hearing to occur on December 9th, without any explanation, it was moved up a week to December 2nd.  This move by corporation counsel was likely made to allow the public hearing and council vote to occur within the same month (as the next full council meeting is on December 7th).  The Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission will also be busy reviewing recent project changes during their December 2nd meeting (the same date and time as the Fair Street Extension public hearing) for an approval, and likely soon. All that’s left is the site plan approval by the Planning Board and variance change by the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is a sense that these approvals are being rushed and out of step, and at the expense of both the public and the process.

In a recent article in the New York State Bar Association “New York to Require Contractors to Pay Prevailing Wages on Certain Private Projects“, they write: “On April 3, 2020, New York lawmakers passed a $177 billion budget bill that significantly expanded the application of prevailing wages on construction projects in the state. While previously the payment of prevailing wages had been reserved for public construction projects only, the new bill expands the prevailing wage requirement to certain private projects for the first time in our state’s history….The law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2022, extends prevailing wages to projects that previously both sides may have viewed as “private,” where total project costs exceed $5,000,000 and where the project receives 30% or more of its total construction project costs from public funds.”

The Kingstonian project costs are well over $5 million and they are also receiving more than 30% of their cost through public funds (consider the DRI funding, grants, PILOTs).  But former Governor Andrew Cuomo slipped in an exemption for construction projects from prevailing wage requirements even if they otherwise met the foregoing criteria. Guess which ones?  “Projects funded by § 16-n of the Urban Development Corporation Act or the Downtown Revitalization Initiative“ making the Kingstonian currently….exempt.

Ironically, during the November Ulster County Industrial Development Agency meeting, Rose Woodworth brought up the new rules for prevailing wage. “…We don’t know the rules because there’s supposed to be a board that was set in place to define it. The prior governor never got that far and the current governor has not gotten that far yet so it’s just a lot up in the air”.

The ball is in Governor Hochul’s court, and Cuomo’s unscrupulous DRI exemption could be struck by the board that she will (or has already) established.

If we are aware of this, then it is without any doubt the City and project developers are too. It is likely motivating them to push hard to get everything in place while they are still exempt. Prevailing wage, if ever applied to the Kingstonian project, would likely make it too expensive to build.

An Update on the Fate of Fair Street Extension and the Kingstonian Project

by
Click on the image above to read the full letter from Rodenhausen, Chale & Polidoro

As readers are aware, in order for the Kingstonian project to proceed, they will need to take over two public properties that are in the midst of very different processes. The first, a parking lot located on 21 North Front Street that the city has been working to transfer to the Kingston Local Development Corporation to handle the sale, which will be contingent on the Kingstonian’s project site plan approval by the Kingston Planning Board.

The second, Fair Street Extension that serves both as a pedestrian walk and public street. This item began moving through committee in October, where the Kingston Common Council’s Finance and Audit Committee “…endorsed a plan to abandon and close a portion of Fair Street Extension to through traffic” for the Kingstonian’s proposed luxury apartment development. The full council is set to vote on this item next week.

Then, on Friday afternoon (11/5), the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel received a letter from Victoria Polidoro of the law firm Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro regarding the city’s plans for 9-17 & 21 N. Front Street and Fair Street Extension, threatening a temporary restraining order.

“Based on the discussion during the Finance and Audit Committee meeting (see below) and the lack of a public hearing notice for November 9, 2021, my clients are concerned that the City will not be following the requisite procedure for the closing of a public street and subsequent conveyance of an interest in the former street bed…our clients are prepared to seek a temporary restraining order from the Ulster County Supreme Court preventing the City from discontinuing and conveying an interest in the Fair Street Extension until all statutory requirements have been followed.”

In the letter, Polidoro outlines the process and procedure for closing a public street and conveyance of public land. “The rights of the public in city streets are inalienable, and may only be sold or conveyed in limited circumstances.” wrote Polidoro. “To discontinue a City of Kingston Street, the Code first requires the City Planner to establish a list of streets or portions of streets which are no longer used as “public thoroughfares” and are now vacant.”

“Code §355-56. The Code then directs the circumstances under which these streets are to be offered for sale, with sale as the only provided for manner of conveying or otherwise disposing of a street: “The [Common] Council shall determine whether the street is of public use or whether it is in the interest of the City of Kingston to sell such street.” Code §355- 58. Property descriptions, assessments, public hearings, and ultimate approval of any deal to sell the public street by the Common Council and Mayor are required before a public thoroughfare can be conveyed. Code §355-61-63, -65. The City must hold a public hearing on ten days’ notice regarding the proposed sale before it can be approved. Code § 355-62.

The Kingston Common Council will likely discuss their anticipated vote on the Fair Street Extension conveyance and easement to the Kingstonian developers during their caucus on Monday, November 8. If they foolishly proceed as previously planned, they will vote on this item at the full monthly Common Council meeting on Tuesday, November 9.

Click on the image to review this and all proposed resolutions on the Kingston Common Council’s agenda next week.

AUDIO: Kingston Common Council Finance Committee hosts Public Hearing on Transfer of Lands to KLDC for Kingstonian Project

by

At last evening’s public hearing, dozens of community members provided testimony in front of the Kingston Common Council’s Finance and Audit Committee to support or to question the transfer of 21 N. Front Street, a publicly owned parcel, to the Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC) by the City of Kingston Common Council. The transfer request was made by Mayor Steve Noble in order to provide the public parcel (assessed at $724,000. Its true value would be higher and is not yet publicaly known) to the developers in exchange for “public benefits” that include a couple of public bathrooms (it is believed that they will be located on the other side of Schwenk Drive at Herzog Plaza, owned by one of the developers). Although it is true that the community was aware of the council’s role in selling or leasing lands that would include 21 North Front Street and Fair Street Extension, the KLDC was not included as an involved agency in the developers Environmental Assessment Form. READ: Finance Committee Discusses Transfer of 21 N. Front Street to Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC) on February 10

Not lost on us, was that although some of the council members names were rattled off at the start of the meeting as being present, all but one chose to be on camera to assure the public that they were attentive and taking the matter seriously. Davis, Hirsch and Schabot, all Democrats, are running for reelection in the fall of 2021.

Here are several highlights:

“We can’t close a street to make uptown more congested than it already is…we the people have invested millions of dollars in this project. Please be our voice. Please take a seat at the table and guide this project to serve both the private developers and the citizens for we are very much investors in this project.” – Lee Kalish, Kingston resident

“In the Mayor’s letter to President Andrea Shaut, the property (21 N. Front Street) is described as a” burden” for the city….Under what criteria does this property become determined as a burden, and does the council agree?”
– Pat Courtney Strong, Kingston resident and member of the KLDC

“I want to express my concern of the lack of understanding of this process by the general public and the lack of transparency on behalf of the City of Kingston….If the city were not to transfer 21 N. Front Street to the KLDC, what rules and regulations would it need to abide by to sell the property. What public process would there be? I’m concerned that we may by taking on the property obscure that vital process of civic engagement.”
– Miles Crettien, Kingston resident, business owner and member of the KLDC

“I live on Franklin Street where last year, the house across the street sold for $150k. This year, it sold for $550k. We are watching massive displacement, there are families living in hotels. This is not the time that we need to invest more money in a private developer… I thought this was a progressive common council. You have all talked about wanting to represent your community. What I have seen is your support of developers. I hope this vote is the chance for you to show that you support all Kingston Citizens.”
– Ilana Berger, Kingston resident

“I think the transfer might violate the RFQ…it states that no city official shall have any personal interest, and Brad Jordan (Kingstonian Developer) sits on the Police Commission and he was on the KLDC for all of these years until he resigned only last month..the way this process has been managed reeks of impropriety, appearance and in fact.”
– Ilona Ross, Kingston/Olivebridge

The developer’s public relations team initiated a new form letter that was included in the public hearing packet (that is available on the City of Kingston’s website). It’s expected that council members will receive dozens more. More highlights:

The Bruderhof community:

The Jordan Family:

Scott Dutton/Architecture:

The City of Kingston’s Finance Committee will hold a special Finance Committee meeting on Monday, March 1 at 6:30pm (although the city calendar also says 6:00pm) where council members are expected to vote on the transfer of 21 North Front Street. Although there will not be public comment, you can call in to the number below, or stream live at the City of Kingston’s YOUTUBE channel.

Topic: SPECIAL FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING
Time: Mar 1, 2021 06:30 PM 

Dial by your location
        +1 646 558 8656 
Meeting ID: 875 3817 4793
Passcode: 43255357

Public Hearing to transfer city property to Kingston Land Development Corporation for Kingstonian developers on February 25.

by

WHAT
A public hearing on a transfer of city-owned property that is currently used as a municipal parking lot at 21 N. Front Street to the Kingstonian Local Development Corporation (KLDC)

WHERE
Call: 646/558-8656
Meeting ID: 832 7922 5917
Passcode: 01295278
Watch live on the City of Kingston’s YouTube channel

Anyone wishing to speak or to submit a written comment can email City Clerk Elisa Tinti at emtinti@kingston-ny.gov (by 3pm on 2/25)

WHEN
Thursday, February 25th at 6:30pm

WHY
The Mayor of Kingston has requested that the Kingston Common Council transfer a city owned property to the Kingston Local Development Corporation to give to the Kingstonian project developers for their luxury housing and boutique hotel project in Uptown, Kingston.

The Kingston Common Council’s Finance Committee will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 25 at 6:30pm regarding a proposed transfer of city-owned property that is currently being used as a municipal parking lot and public park at 21 N. Front Street to the Kingston Local Development Corp (KLDC). The transfer would allow the KLDC to facilitate the property’s use as part of the Kingstonian, a proposed luxury housing and boutique hotel project in Kingston’s historic stockade district in Uptown, Kingston. 

The public can provide testimony for the record that evening as to whether or not they have concerns about the city transferring a piece of public land currently being used for a municipal parking lot and public park to a luxury developer who has already secured tens of millions of dollars of public subsidies. It is unclear whether or not the city intends to sell the parcel or to provide it to the developers for free. Following the public hearing, the Finance Committee will vote during a special Finance Committee meeting on Monday, March 1st at 6:30pm prior to the council’s caucus at 7:00pm. It will likely move out of committee and onto the floor for a full council vote the following day on Tuesday, March 2 at 7:00pm

Thanks to a LETTER submitted by Victoria Polidoro on February 10, the attorney representing several Uptown Kingston building owners, please consider the following concerns in your testimony that she identified:

1. The 21 N. Front Street property is currently used as both a public parking lot and public park. In order for the City to transfer the parcel to the Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC), it must first find that the property is not needed for its current public purpose.

2. Regardless, as it pertains to the public park, Not-for-Profit Corporation Law prohibits the City from conveying any land that is “inalienable as a forest preserve or a parkland.” The issue of whether the Park constitutes inalienable parkland is currently pending before the Ulster County Supreme Court and any action to convey the Property before this issue is decided would open the City to further legal action.

3. It is apparent that the City is seeking to convey the Property to the KLDC in order to do what it is otherwise prohibited from doing, conveying a city-owned parking lot to a private developer for free. The City must fulfill its obligations to its taxpayers and negotiate a fair price for the Property. In doing so it would require, at minimum, an appraisal of the fair market value of the Property. The City has assessed the Property at $724,000 and its fair market value is likely significantly higher since the pandemic has caused Ulster County to have the fastest rising property values in the Country.

4. Given that the Project will actually reduce publicly available parking and frustrate the Property’s public purposes, the City cannot justifiably claim that the conveyance of the Property will be paid back in the form of public benefits. Moreover, any alleged public benefits have already been presented by the developers as the basis for grants and PILOTs worth tens of millions of dollars and zoning amendments custom-tailored to allow the Kingstonian. 

If permitted, this conveyance would result in the elimination of an existing public parking lot and the construction of an inadequate replacement of those parking spaces in the form of a private parking garage. After everything the City and its residents have given and will give up to indulge the Kingstonian, the City must ensure that it receives fair compensation before handing over City-owned, publicly-utilized Property to private developers.

Next up. The closure of Fair Street Extension in Uptown Kingston for the Kingstonian project will be next on the Kingston Common Council’s list of giveaways. According to city code Chapter 355 Streets and Sidewalks, in Article XIII Procedures for Disposing of Certain Streets unlike the municipal parking lot being transferred to the KLDC, the council will need to approve the “sale” of the street. That is, unless the Mayor and his lawyers find a clever way to work around the language in the code. There has never been a more willing council.

RESOURCES

VIEW “Finance Committee Discusses Transfer of 21 N. Front Street to Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC) on February 10” (KingstonCitizens.org)

Finance Committee Discusses Transfer of 21 N. Front Street to Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC) on February 10

by
The Kingstonian Developer’s Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)

With the approval of the Kingstonian project’s unprecedented 25-year PILOT, the remaining governmental approvals for the development will be initiated. On Friday, January 29th, the Mayor of Kingston submitted the first of those with a communication from his office to the Common Council President requesting the “transfer of 21 N. Front Street to the Kingston Local Development Corporation (KLDC)” be assigned to the appropriate council committee. It is one of a two part decision making process required by the Kingston Common Council for a parking garage to accommodate the Kingstonian project’s luxury apartments and boutique hotel. Step one, the sale or lease of land and step two, the closing of Fair Street Extension (see image above).

Given the speed in which these decisions are made once communications are submitted, we encouraged the public to turn out at their first opportunity to speak during the full council meeting on February 2. Thanks to community members who spoke on record or submitted comments to urge the council not to close a public street for this project. The testimony was informative and important for the council to hear prior to their committee discussions during which time there are not public comment opportunities.

At the February 2 council meeting, the public learned from the agenda packet that the land transfer had been assigned to the council’s Finance Committee on Wednesday, February 10 at 6:30pm. The five members of the common council who serve on the finance committee include Ward 5 Alderman Don Tallerman, Ward 7 Alderman Tony Davis, Ward 9 Alderwoman Michelle Hirsch, Ward 8 Alderman Steve Schabot and Ward 3 Alderman (and majority leader) Rennie Scott Childress is chair.

Once the city property is transferred, the council will move forward with a decision to close Fair Street Extension. Although the assessed value of 21 N. Front Street is known to be $724,000, the value of Fair Street Extension remains unknown.

As there isn’t a public comment opportunity during the council’s finance committee meeting, the public may watch and listen to the discussion starting at 6:30pm on 2/10 by visiting the City of Kingston’s YouTube channel.